>So rather than asking everybody to add new messages to the protocol to support this, wouldn't it be better to support
LDin the driver?
Well, it would still require to wrap one's mind around to get that efficient.
You do not like to deallocate all server-prepared statements after
each DDL, do you?
On the other hand, JDBC driver does not know changes to which
tables/views/functions/types would impact statements prepared in
current session, thus JDBC driver has no idea which changes it should
subscribe to.
>wouldn't it be better to support LD in the driver?
That's another question. +1 for supporting LD in the driver (for both
internal and external uses).
Vladimir
